Stanford’s biggest problem: It could be even worse next year

Watching the Duck fans rush the court after lowly Oregon finally found a team it could beat, one thought kept running through my mind:

There’s zero reason to think that Stanford, currently alone in ninth place, will be any better next year. Or the year after that.

Could the Cardinal be entering a 21st century version of the Tom Davis era, where 15 overall wins and six league wins is the norm? (Anything but that … except maybe the Dick DiBiaso era!)

Could athletic director Bob Bowlsby really have run the program into the ground as quickly and deeply as cynical old me suspected he did last spring? (Say it ain’t so!)

Seriously, I look at the 2009-10 lineup and see holes just about everywhere:

No proven point guard, no proven big man, some decent pieces on the wings and a young head coach who hasn’t made the most of his talent this year and will have even less talent next year.

That’s a recipe for … oh, I dunno … ninth place.

Yes, forward Landry Fields returns, and he’s a good player. But if he’s by far your best player, which is how it looks now, then you’re a second-tier team.

Yes, Josh Owens is athletic and Will Paul is a good perimeter shooter. But neither can score in the post and Paul, especially, is vulnerable defensively.

Yes, Jeremy Green is a nice complementary shooter, but until proven otherwise, that’s all he is.

(And if Green has to play the point because Drew Shiller/Jarrett Mann/Da’Veed Dildy/Emmanuel Igbinosa/unsigned freshman/Brevin Knight’s cardboard cutout can’t play the point, then you lose Green’s wing scoring.)

And it’s not like the Cardinal will have a bevy of impact players entering the program.

Signed recruit Andy Brown will be coming off knee surgery and isn’t a first-rate talent anyhow, while presumed transfer Andrew Zimmerman, formerly of Santa Clara, is a role player at the Pac-10 level.

That said, I feel compelled to mention the possibility that Coach Johnny Dawkins will sign an impact player in April and/or evolve into a top-tier coach who can hold his own in the crucible of conference play.

Does anybody think that group, even with natural offseason improvement, is significantly better than the roster currently in ninth place?

Look at it this way: Would you rather have the top four players this year (Mitch Johnson, Anthony Goods, Lawrence Hill and Fields: three seniors and a junior) or any four players from next year?

I’ll take the current quartet without hesitation, especially because point guard is the most important position and Stanford, at this point, doesn’t have one.

(I recognize Johnson’s limitations offensively and athletically. But he’s a senior, he’s tough, and he has almost twice as many assists as turnovers. Plenty of coaches would be thrilled to have a floor leader like that.)

Does this mean the Cardinal will finish ninth next year? Certainly not.

It could finish seventh or eighth. But it’s hard to imagine, even under the best circumstances, Stanford climbing into the top five or six.

I’ve looked at the projected rosters:

* UCLA, obviously, will have more talent.

* Cal and Oregon State are only going to get better with the players who are expected to return (Randle, Christopher, Haynes, Schaftenaar) and the head coaches having their systems in place.

* Washington and USC are expected to bring back several of their best players (Thomas, Oveton, Pondexter, Lewis, Hackett).

* Washington State and Oregon have relied heavily on underclassmen this season (Dunigan, Sim, Longmire, Thompson, Casto).

* ASU and Arizona are expected to lose their top talents to the NBA.

Basically, if you were to project the 2009-10 finish based on what we know now, only the Arizona schools might be picked below Stanford — and I emphasize the might .

So not only is Stanford headed for its worst season in 16 years, but next year could be just as bad.